NARAIN AND OTHERS Vs. DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, whereby their suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, which they instituted against the defendants-respondents, was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court.

(2.) Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Facts, which need to be noticed for the disposal of the appeal, are like this. One Smt. Badamu, an old woman, acquired ownership of the suit property, on account of conferment of proprietary rights upon her, under Sec. 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, because earlier she was a tenant of this land. Soon after the attestation of mutation of conferment of proprietary rights, Badamu allegedly entered into an agreement, Ex. PW-2/A, for the sale of the suit land with the plaintiffs-appellants. She received the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs. 6,000.00 and put the plaintiffs-appellants in possession of the suit land. Sale deed was, however, not executed, immediately, because as per law there was a bar to the transfer of land by the tenants acquiring proprietary rights, under Sec. 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, for a period of ten years. Before the expiry of the period of ten years, Badamu died. After the death of Badamu in 1986, suit property was mutated in favour of said Biriya and Mathru, who sold the same to the present defendants-respondents, by executing sale deeds. Plaintiffs-appellants claimed that since they were in possession of the suit property, they had the right to remain in possession till they were lawfully dispossessed. They alleged that defendants-respondents, on the strength of the sale deed executed in their favour by Biriya and Mathru, were trying to oust them.